NFHS 2019 Test Question #3

[yawetag]

A pop fly hits the bat which is lying in foul territory and then touches fair ground.

A. The ball is deemed to be a fair ball and stays in play.

B. It is a dead ball and the batter is awarded two bases.

C. The batter is declared out.

D. It is a foul ball and immediately dead.

2.16.1 in the Case Book tells us a bat on the ground isn't a foreign object for a bunt, and I assume it's the same for a foul ball. This one I'm almost certain is correct, but wanted validation.

[noumpere]

13 minutes ago, yawetag said:

2.16.1 in the Case Book tells us a bat on the ground isn't a foreign object for a bunt, and I assume it's the same for a foul ball. This one I'm almost certain is correct, but wanted validation.

 

Does it?  I don't have my (old) books handy, but I thought it wasn't a foreign object if it was in fair ground, but was if it was in foul ground.

[kylehutson]

2-16-1 (d)

A foul is a batted ball ... that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or a player or any object foreign to the natural ground

Based on that, I'd say "D"

[yawetag]

I understand that, too, @kylehutson. But Case Play 2.16.1.D says "The bat is considered to be part of the playing field."

5-1-1d-1 says "Ball becomes immediately when a foul ball touches any object other than the ground or any person other than a fielder."

I don't understand how they can make a bat in fair territory a different status than one in foul territory, especially with no case play or rule that makes the distinction, so with 5-1-1, my assumption is that the bat is part of the field, so you can't call it foul yet.

[Forest Ump]

1 hour ago, yawetag said:

 

5-1-1d-1 says "Ball becomes immediately dead when a foul ball touches any object other than the ground or any person other than a fielder."

 

1. You're thinking too much.

2. You don't need the case book to pass this test

3. The test follows the order of the rule book.

[yawetag]

27 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

1. You're thinking too much.

2. You don't need the case book to pass this test

3. The test follows the order of the rule book.

I won't argue with #1.

My test is definitely not in the order of the rule book, and some of the questions are almost-direct copies of case plays. Find the relevant one and you can answer it without the rule book.

Done with the test now. If I'd gone with my original answers (i.e., before I checked them all using the Rule Book and Case Book), I would have made a 96. Instead, I made a 97. The three I missed were all, at least in my opinion, poorly worded and I can justify the answer I gave based on the way it was written.

I'm not upset, either. After umpiring my last Fed game four years ago, and any baseball for two, I'm not going to complain with getting 97%.

[Forest Ump]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

 

My test is definitely not in the order of the rule book, and some of the questions are almost-direct copies of case plays. Find the relevant one and you can answer it without the rule book.

 

Great job. Missing three is good. I'm surprised your test didn't follow the rule book order. Mine did to a tee. From beginning to end. My test started with section 1 "any question regarding the legality of equipment" and ended with signal in the back of the book "What is the foul ball signal"? I always thought the test were the same but I guess I'm wrong.

I won't find out how I did for a few weeks. When I submitted, it said passed, but the powers to be won't give out the results until the next meeting.

[JSam21]

I haven't had to take the test the past 2 seasons... Still doing high school games. 

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

I haven't had to take the test the past 2 seasons... Still doing high school games. 

Interesting, considering MSHSAA requires it. And, at least in my experience, GSLAU would love to know that one of its officials isn't completing the required steps to maintain his registration.

[ilyazhito]

Maybe JSam21 is from a state where (at least some veteran) officials aren't required to take the rules test every year. 

About the OP, I would say D, because there is no way that a bat is part of the playing field. It is player equipment, not grass or dirt. 

[yawetag]

14 minutes ago, ilyazhito said:

Maybe JSam21 is from a state where (at least some veteran) officials aren't required to take the rules test every year. 

I recently moved from the state and organization he lists in his profile. All officials, new and veteran, are required to take and pass he online NFHS test. Would MSHSAA do anything to an official who didn't? I'd like to think so, but I have no knowledge on their disciplinary steps actually taken - though I know what's in their handbook. As for GSLAU, I was active with the organization until last year and am knowledgeable of their policies as it relates to umpires and their state registrations.

I wouldn't have made the original comment if I didn't know it to be true.

[JSam21]

30 minutes ago, yawetag said:

Interesting, considering MSHSAA requires it. And, at least in my experience, GSLAU would love to know that one of its officials isn't completing the required steps to maintain his registration.

I am Part 1 exempt from MSHSAA

 

[lawump]

11 hours ago, yawetag said:

The three I missed were all, at least in my opinion, poorly worded and I can justify the answer I gave based on the way it was written.

I just want the record to reflect that I do not write the test.  LOL. 

(Nor do I get an advance copy; nor do I get the answers...I have to take it just like everyone else in my state.)

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, yawetag said:

I don't understand how they can make a bat in fair territory a different status than one in foul territory, e

A batted ball that hits equipment in fair territory is not yet fair or foul -- the status is determined b what happens "next", just as if the ball had not hit the equipment (touched by a fielder, comes to rest, passes a base (or the line between third and first in Fed)).

A batted ball that hits equipment in foul territory is foul.

[Jimurray]

14 hours ago, yawetag said:

I understand that, too, @kylehutson. But Case Play 2.16.1.D says "The bat is considered to be part of the playing field."

5-1-1d-1 says "Ball becomes immediately when a foul ball touches any object other than the ground or any person other than a fielder."

I don't understand how they can make a bat in fair territory a different status than one in foul territory, especially with no case play or rule that makes the distinction, so with 5-1-1, my assumption is that the bat is part of the field, so you can't call it foul yet.

They do have a caseplay that makes the distinction:

2.5.1 SITUATION E:

The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in (a) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in fair territory; (b) foul territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in either fair or foul territory; or (c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory.

RULING: In (a), the ball is fair. In (b) and (c), the ball is foul.

[kylehutson]

14 hours ago, yawetag said:

I understand that, too, @kylehutson. But Case Play 2.16.1.D says "The bat is considered to be part of the playing field."

Playing field != Natural ground

[wolfe_man]

In Ohio, we don't have to take it every year unless we want playoff games or are trying to move up a level.

[JSam21]

23 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

In Ohio, we don't have to take it every year unless we want playoff games or are trying to move up a level.

I'm actually not even offered Part 1 to take the past two years. 

[johnnyg08]

Foul ball. As others have stated, don't overthink this. 

 

 

[yawetag]

5 hours ago, JSam21 said:

I am Part 1 exempt from MSHSAA

 

OK. But you take Part II, correct? And, unless it's changed in the past two years, it's a FED multiple choice test?

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, yawetag said:

OK. But you take Part II, correct? And, unless it's changed in the past two years, it's a FED multiple choice test?

Yes I will... I guess I should have stated that I haven't taken part 1 in 2 years.